Should We Fight for South Ossetia?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

In an echo of Warren Harding's "A Return to
Normalcy" speech of 1920, George Bush last week declared, "Normalcy is returning
back to Iraq."

The term seemed a mite ironic. For, as Bush spoke, Iraqis were dying in
the hundreds in the bloodiest fighting in months in Basra, the Shia militias
of Moqtada al-Sadr were engaging Iraqi and U.S. troops in Sadr City, and mortar
shells were dropping into the Green Zone.

One begins to understand why Gen. Petraeus wants a "pause" in the pullout
of U.S. forces, and why Bush agrees. This will leave more U.S. troops in Iraq
on Inauguration Day 2009 than on Election Day 2006, when the country voted the
Democrats into power to bring a swift end to the war.

A day before Bush went to the U.S. Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio, to
speak of normalcy returning to Iraq, he was led down into "the Tank," a secure
room at the Pentagon, to be briefed on the crisis facing the U.S. Army and Marine
Corps because of the constant redeployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.

As the Associated Press' Robert Burns reported, the Joint Chiefs "laid
out their concerns about the health of the U.S. force." First among them is
"that U.S. forces are being worn thin, compromising the Pentagon's ability to
handle crises elsewhere in the world. … The U.S. has about 31,000 troops in
Afghanistan and 156,000 in Iraq."

"Five plus years in Iraq," the generals and admirals told Bush, "could
create severe, long-term problems, particularly for the Army and Marine Corps."

In short, the two long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are wearing down U.S.
ground forces of fewer than 700,000, one in every six of them women, to such
an extent U.S. commanders called Bush and Dick Cheney to a secret meeting to
awaken them to the strategic and morale crisis.

This is serious business. With the Taliban revived and the violence in
Iraq rising toward pre-surge levels, the Joint Chiefs are telling the commander
in chief that the U.S. Army and Marine Corps are worn out.

Crunch time is coming. And what is President Bush doing?

He is flying to Bucharest, Romania, to persuade Europe to bring Ukraine
and Georgia into NATO, which means a U.S. commitment to treat any Russian attack
on Kiev or Tbilisi like an attack on Kansas or Texas.

Article V of the NATO treaty declares that "an armed attack against one
or more [allies] shall be considered an attack against them all." Added language
makes clear that the commitment to assist an ally is not unconditional. Rather,
each signatory will assist the ally under attack with "such action as it deems
necessary, including the use of armed force."

Yet, it was understood during the Cold War that if a NATO ally like Norway,
West Germany, or Turkey, which bordered on the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact,
were attacked, America would come to its defense.

Can any sane man believe the United States should go to war with a nuclear-armed
Russia over Stalin's birthplace, Georgia?

Two provinces of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, have seceded, with
the backing of Russia. And there are 10 million Russian-speaking Ukrainians
in the east of that country, and Moscow and Kiev are at odds over which is sovereign
on the Crimean Peninsula.

To bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO would put America in the middle
of these quarrels. We could be dragged into a confrontation with Russia over
Abkhazia, or South Ossetia, or who owns Sebastopol. To bring these ex-republics
of the Soviet Union into NATO would be an affront to Moscow not unlike 19th
century Britain bringing the Confederate state of South Carolina under the protection
of the British Empire.

How would Lincoln's Union have reacted to that?

With a weary army and no NATO ally willing to fight beside us, how could
we defend Georgia if Tbilisi, once in NATO, defied Moscow and invaded Abkhazia
and South Ossetia – and Russia bombed the Georgian army and capital? Would we
declare war? Would we send the 82nd Airborne into the Pankisi Gorge?

Fortunately, Germany is prepared to veto any Bush attempt to put Ukraine
or Georgia on a fast track into NATO. But President Bush is no longer the problem.
John McCain is.

As Anatol
Lieven writes in the Financial Times, McCain supports a restoration
of Georgian rule over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and NATO membership for Georgia
and Ukraine. He wants to throw Russia out of the G-8 – and talks flippantly
of bombing Iran.

Says McCain, "I would institute a policy called 'rogue-state rollback.'
I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would
eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected
governments."

Wonderful. A Second Crusade for Global Democracy. But with the Joint Chiefs
warning of a war-weary Army and Marine Corps, who will fight all the new wars
the neocons and their new champion have in store for us?

Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential
nomination and the Reform Partys candidate in 2000. He is also
a founder and editor of the new magazine, The
American Conservative. Now a commentator and columnist, he
served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist
of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books.

Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
without written permission is strictly prohibited.
Copyright 2015 Antiwar.com